2014 Subaru Forester 2.5i Touring Verdict

For the past 365 days, I have been completely content with the vehicle at my disposal for one uncomplicated -- and very American -- reason: freedom. I have had the uncommon ability to do just about anything I wanted, for the Forester 2.5i Touring's multifaceted character easily coped with everything I and the MT staff demanded. My admiration for Subaru's smallest wagon began almost instantly. I had been given stewardship of a rolling Leatherman. In fact, you could say it came equipped like one. Everything I wanted, it had. Things such as dual automatic climate control, a panoramic roof, cruise control, Bluetooth connectivity, power windows and locks, alloy wheels, roof racks, four bottle holders, a rearview camera, power tailgate, and a massive center console with storage galore came standard on the Touring, the most opulent trim powered by the naturally aspirated, 2.5-liter four-cylinder boxer.

Harman/Kardon's eight-speaker, 440-watt audio system blew me away with its clear, robust sound, though the infotainment's digitized menus aren't simple and weren't always responsive. The optional Keyless Access & Start, EyeSight system, HID package ($2400) is a must for those, like me, who want extra-luminescent xenon lights (blame my pesky astigmatism). As I began to rack up miles, I took issue with EyeSight driver-assist system, the brand's first attempt at adaptive cruise control and crash avoidance. It uses two windshield-mounted cameras to scan the road ahead for obstructions and vehicles. It often flashed warnings and errors of malfunction or deactivation due to heavy fog or direct sunlight. Granted, in this vintage of Forester, EyeSight was in its first generation. It's now in its second in the 2015 Legacy—and it works amazingly well, I might add.

Even with the occasional bouts of unconsciousness, EyeSight's intuitive distance control did allow me to cruise unperturbed. It was responsible for preemptively pressurizing the brakes during a few close calls in stop-and-go traffic. It also warned me when the car ahead had proceeded from a stop and flashed alerts when I touched the outskirts of a painted lane.

Inside, friends admired the reclining bench seat's supple padding and were pleased with the generous 41.7 inches of rear legroom. The panoramic moonroof enhanced the sense of spaciousness when it was opened completely—about half of the roof is missing at that point. It got its most use when warm Santa Ana evening winds blew through. Such breezes were the impetus for the addition of optional side window deflectors ($100). I also added a Yakima bike carrier ($170) and a darkened sport grille ($430). A few colleagues poked fun at the Forester's "dorky" appearance, but I didn't care. The Forester became mine, personalized by factory-sourced add-ons I used every day.Unfortunately, the cargo cover wasn't included as standard. Fed up with having my things unprotected from the sun's rays and peering eyes, I shelled out $170 for the accessory. It was a better concealer than my blanket and it could be easily taken out when folding the 60/40 seats. I hid any pricey goodies in the cubby storage under the cargo bay's floor, an excellent feature I often forgot was even there.

I have no kiddos. Furry four-legged critters aren't (yet) in my picture. One beautiful lady calls me hers. So usually just the two of us rode aboard the cushy, heated front leather seats, hauling shopping bags filled with groceries or her newly acquired designer goods, my gym duffel, her quad-fin fish surfboard, or the occasional disassembled bike. The capacious 31.5-cubic-foot cargo area (it grows to 68.5 cubic feet with rear seats folded) happily gobbled it all, and the gray leather-wrapped surfaces -- to my pleasant surprise -- remained mostly unblemished during its stay in our garage.The Forester provided effortless ruggedness. Traversing nearby snow-covered mountain passes was like asking a fish to swim in water. The Forester did what came naturally. Its Active Torque Split all-wheel drive and X-Mode traction assist (which optimizes throttle, transmission, and braking responses to aid grip) maximized its hold on the trickiest of surfaces time and time again.For all of its functionality and ruggedness, the Forester still delivered comfort, reliability, and efficiency. Trade shows and car launches had me trekking 500 miles to Las Vegas and back a handful of times. After each trip, I had a stronger admiration for the cabin's lack of noise and the chassis' dutiful absorption of the rough asphalt. The upright and elevated position of the driver's seat -- a Subaru staple -- was a great vantage point from which to navigate my 170-horsepower multi-tool.Those trips, as well as my 240-mile traffic-clogged journeys to San Diego every weekend, were the perfect miles-per-gallon tests. Like clockwork, the onboard data display informed me of combined fuel consumption averages of 27, 28, 30 mpg, easily yielding tank ranges of over 400 miles.

I visited my local dealer three times during the year, each at scheduled 7500-mile intervals. At every stop, six quarts of 0W-20 synthetic oil and the associated filter were swapped, tire pressures checked, and multi-point inspections completed. The second service called for the rotation of the 225/60R17 Yokohama Geolander M+S all-seasons, while the last mandated that a new cabin air filter be installed. The best part? Subaru Care picks up the tab. Owners don't pay a cent. The maintenance program comes with each new vehicle and varies in length and scope depending on region. The sole exception to that generous Subaru rule were the Falken ZIEX ZE950 A/S tires we purchased ($100 each) at 24,000 miles. The new Japanese rubber provided an even quieter ride than the Yokohamas and paralleled them in comfort. They should also outlast the stock rubber, given their 600 UTQGS (versus 320) tread-wear rating.As for the overall driving experience, I had but two gripes. The first was an annoyance with an overeager throttle. I learned very quickly to ease my toe-in to barely there levels. Still, every day I'd dart from stoplights as if I had my pink slip on the line.The second, and less significant, dealt with the lack of paddle shifters. I regularly wondered, if the more powerful 2.0-liter turbo had paddles, how difficult could it be to give a set to the 2.5-liter? It would add an entertaining aspect to the Lineartronic CVT's boring, yet highly capable, demeanor. Don't get me wrong; this CVT, matched with the potent and fuel-conscious boxer, is one of the best on the market. It's smooth and quiet. That's exactly what you want.For a solid 12 months, our 2014 Sport Utility of the Year had me abandoning all worries of where to go and what to do. I simply went anywhere, and brought everything and everyone I needed along. It withstood the rambunctiousness of a staff that is particularly demanding of vehicles. To which I say: Awesome. The toughness it possessed and the freedom it permitted were special traits that my previous long-termers, a thirsty 2011 Nissan Juke and a front-wheel-drive 2013 Mazda CX-5, could never really offer.Taking into account the Forester's significant degrees of comfort, style, fuel efficiency, and safety (it's an IIHS Top Safety Pick Plus), I would say it's worthy of our coveted SUOTY title. But, we already did that. Twice. In other words, the Forester did its job. And it did it extraordinarily well.More on our long-term 2014 Subaru Forester 2.5i Touring:

Europe
has it correct. They charge the manufacturers for the impact
their packaging will cost in the entire waste stream. They reduce the size
and type of packaging so they aren't charged as much and then turn that into a
lower priced product that out competes those who were doing "business as
usual."

I have just switched from a 2004 base model Honda CRV to the 2015 Subaru Forester Touring. I had been happy with the CRV until the A/C went out (second tiome - first was under warranty). During an Internet search, I learned that the A/C problem was due to a design flaw and was quite common to this year (and several other years) CRV models.

A review that gives a real report on the vehicle and not a 4-wheel infotainment device. My only "question" is paddle shifters on a CVT? Probably because I intensely dislike CVTs; these things could cause a come-back of manuals.

I found this article interesting as we recently replaced our trusted 2008 Forester with a new 2014. We opted for the 6-speed manual as the old Subie was also a manual which we prefer over the lame CVT. This is a much better way to get the best performance as well as fuel economy from the boxer 4. Overall, we like the new 2014 for the good interior room, reliability and swiss-army knife usefulness. We prefer the 2008 styling over the 2014, and also disapprove of the stylists use of garish black and gray two-tone interiors. Keep the solid gray of the 2008. A small complaint, but one that shows the bean counters influence on the car is the single exhaust of the 2014 compared to the duals utilized on prior Foresters.

Soon to replace our 2006 Forester with a 2015. Surprising how large the new one appears when the old one is parked beside it. Thank you Subaru for keeping a manual transmission in at least the base model (here in Canada you can get a manual in the Touring level as well). You cannot beat this car in deep snow.

I'll admit, I'm a bit of a snob. I have an MFA in art and design from a prestigious college and actually think the 2014-15 Foresters exterior design is actually much nicer then most of its competitors, sans the Mini Countryman. It's quite handsome, in fact. The CRV is so boring and the Mazda looks cheaply tin-can made to me, although peppy, as is the RAV. I like the BMW, it feels solid, but long-term very unreliable and mpg is not good. Mercedes suv sweet but gas guzzler and diesel seemed hard and pricey to get in states. My husband said I could get any car I wanted under 60k and I chose this Forester over my favored Mini ultimately because of cargo space, somewhat green, overall reliability, and off-road capability. Touraeg is nice too, but what a waste of gas and the rear view mirror shook when taking turns! I used to drive Volvos before brutal American take-over, Suburu, to me, is like the new Volvo was in the eighties and nineties! I used to love me a boxy Volvo! Acura seemed okay but a bit boring. Husband wanted Acura! I love the new Forester, with exception of white and the the light grey seat colors. I would have chosen camel. Base and next model up seem very cheap. Limited, Touring, and XT are lovely. Great stereo system. Chrome door handles inside are nice touch. Analogue clock is charming and retro, timeless, and easy on eyes. I would like better interior lighting. The plastic lights are cheaply designed, although utilitarian. Put a light in glove-box with fridge capability. Other than that and quick throttle, I love my Forester! She is elegant to look at, but game for any terrain or weather, both city and countryside! It's like a Birkenstock shoe, I hear, but, to me it's more of a Camper brand shoe, pretty and functional, durable, versatile, and reliable!

While I like the Forester far more than most Barbie Jeeps*, I'd have to spend time with a CVT-equipped one before I'd consider buying a new one (but I'd still take a used Forester over a new anything else).

Pity the poor fool who takes a single car review as gospel. While you are going into rhapsodies as if Subaru had a gun to your head, was signing your paycheck, or both, Car and Driver was far more measured. Said the CVT exhibits all the worst qualities of CVTs and made it slow &loud. Placed it third in a comparo w/ the cx-5 and rav4.

Yeah, I get that it is a very practical AWD box, but it isn't alone in that. This article is praise for highly-optioned AWD CUVs in general rather than the Forester specifically.

The padding of the bottom front seats needs to be addressed. Needs the 2015 Outback infotainment system. Make Sport# standard. The cabin still looks plastic fantastic. I'd offer the ability to disconnect the rear wheels but keep AWD standard so you can bump the MPG numbers.

@anandn A sure cure for insomnia would be to try and take any of the Forester's competition (besides the Jeep Cherokee Trailhawk) to some of the places its' considerable off road capability will allow you to go....

You know how you deal with that pesky lack of shifter paddles thing? You get the stick. This car is a gem with a manual gear box and a dud with the CVT, in my opinion. Not to mention that adding artificial "gears" to a CVT completely defeats its purpose and negates the efficiency benefits that the CVT provides when operating as intended: without distinct gear ratios.

I had loaner Forester XT for a few days from my local Subaru/Kia dealership while my Optima was getting undercoat treatment. It felt very solid, very capable. Easy enough for anyone in any age group to pick up the keys and go. Gripes? Styling. It doesn't get any more ho-hum than this. And the cabin, though comfy enough, is filled with a sea of hard dark plastics, which I'm surprised wasn't one of their gripes. I can see why it won SUV of the year, it does everything right. But these days its pretty easy to get a little pizazz with a solid and reliable packaged CUV, which is why the Forester wouldn't be my first choice.

@planblove The Forester would be my first and only choice because I'm still crazy enough to take any four wheel drive or all wheel drive vehicle I own off-road. The only other compact crossover with any real off-road capability is the new Jeep Cherokee and there's just something about Fiat mechanicals going off-road that would give me concern about making it back safely (although at least it wouldn't get stuck like a CR-V, RAV-4, Escape or most any other CUV off road).

Perfect example of "function over style". On paper it reads so practical, great MPG, great room and size and good price. But so boring to look at. The interior looks like it could be a picture of a car from 10 years ago.

Looks like for 2-3 grand more you can get an equivalent Forester XT, that'd have to be my choice because the power and acceleration of the 2.5i seem mediocre. Otherwise it's seems like a faithful companion.

I used to work at a Subaru dealer and I had to take a Forester to training in Denver. It was a one hour drive. By the end, I couldn't wait to get out of that thing. The seat bottoms are so flat they almost feel like they're angled forward, and the cushion is way too short. I don't know how you could bear 500 miles in that thing.

The best in the market? I wonder if MT know nissan and subaru CVT's are the same, it just that nissan program their differently, and they uses a thinner belt to reduce weight while subaru uses a thicker belt, which is not really noticable, but they are design by jatco and subaru. and of course i have the evidence.

" In January 2003, Fuji Heavy Industries and Jatco established, on a fifty-fifty investment agreement, a joint company called Fuji AT for the development and production of CVT. The new company is located within Oizumi factory of Fuji Heavy Industries' Gunma Works."

@chanonissan You're are on point; however, perhaps the thicker belt and the boxer engine pair up better with the CVT application than Nissan's i4. I compared the Altima with the Legacy, and as most notice with Nissan you definitely hear the droning sound while getting up to fwy speeds. However, I didn't really notice any noise with the Legacy.

Programming is about 90% of what makes a transmission good vs. bad. Most automatics are inherently bad, which is why you can have two cars use the same tranny, and have it be praised in one car and damned in the next. Just look at the DCT in the Focus. It was somewhere between awful and unbearable when the car first came out, but Ford put out a re-flash of the software, and now it's not too bad. The fact that it's a cheaper, dry-clutch version hurts it somewhat, but just changing how it was programmed made a huge difference.

@Whatnow @chanonissan point taking,It has not to do with pairing but programming, but most of that noise is from the engine and not the CVT, nissan CVT change ratio quickly, that is how it benefits from the high efficiency,that is the sound you hear, the engine trying to catch up to the CVT, honda and toyota on the other hand put in more set points, so the CVT does not out run the engine per say but a suitable ratio at certain engine speed, but uses more fuel. Nissan can do the same but it will cost you more fuel use.But the 2.5 nissan use is also old and probably not as efficient as the boxer, so they have to do that to get maximum efficiency out of the engine.

@zdkibler @chanonissan If you read my post carefully I did mention that it is nissan who program it that way, but it could be that how it get maximum efficiency out of the old 2.5 liter mill. remember nissan engine is not new and it is unrefine now compare to others, Ford and honda and several others have newer mills with DI. One disadvantage with CVT the more set points the worst your fuel efficiency becomes but it drives better. That is what honda and toyota does put in more set points, but you see that the altima beats the accord in fuel efficiency.

@chanonissan Great point. I personally would love for Subaru to switch to a ZF 8 speed, but The 3.6 Legacy is pretty good all around. Still hoping for a GT model with the FA20 Turbo, even with the CVT.

"Audi, Honda, Hyundai, Subaru, and Toyota all make their own CVTs. Nissan owns a controlling interest in JATCO, the firm that supplies 49 percent of the world’s gear-free transmissions to Chrysler, GM, Mi­tsu­bishi, and Suzuki. In addition, nearly half of Nissan’s current U.S. models offer a JATCO-supplied CVT."

@Tim_Turbo @chanonissan Car and driver article does not know anything , and first of all I did not say nissan nor jatco makes them , i said jatco and fuji engineering them together, subaru does not build them in house, they are made at the 50-50 partnership plant in japan , that plant still exist today. The 4 speed tranny subaru uses to use is a nissan design, I am sure that was not 10 years ago, I am quite sure the CVT plant own by jatco and subaru in still in existence you can research the plant, I think the plant name can be found on wiki pedia also.

"The first task for Fuji AT involves the development and production of a new CVT for mini-cars and subcompact cars. The new company will assign the actual developmental work to FHI and JATCO, and both companies will jointly develop a world class CVT by sharing each other’s unique CVT technologies and strengths. Fuji AT plans to finalize product development by the end of the fiscal year ending March 31, 2005 (fiscal 2005), and to start supplying the new CVT during fiscal 2006."

As you can read the CVT start supply in FY2006, which is 2007 calendar year, but subaru and nissan was making CVT together before that, from 1992, the nissan march had a subaru design CVT and the hyper CVT was design by subaru and nissan in 1996, so this is nothing new for both companies.What is confusing you is that jatco was never part of nissan CVT operation, they merge with nissan company called transtechnology in 1999.to form jatco transtechnology and was rename to jatco in 2002 when mitsubishi came aboard.

it is up to you Weather you want to believe or not but jatco and subaru still share technology and build their individual CVT.

@chanonissan "and they uses a thinner belt to reduce weight while subaru uses a thicker belt" This is not correct-Subaru uses a thinner steel belt, instead of the thicker segmented chain that Nissan uses. Subaru also has the layout of their CVT pullys vertical, where Nissan does not.

I don't dispute that there is a partnership between companies. I don't dispute that they may in fact share some common CVT technology between brands. But you can't just say the transmissions are the same, just tuned different-because that is not correct. The CVT in a Legacy is not the same as the CVT in an Altima.

The transmissions they did share from the article you reference was for microcars and subcompacts for the JDM. Subaru did not use that transmission in any vehicle they had for sale in the USA. Not sure if Nissan used them in the USA or not-Nissan started using CVT's here before Subaru (not counting the Justy).

@Tim_Turbo @chanonissan This is where you are wrong again , the subaru/ nissan build hyper CVT was not for micro nor for subcompacts, the primera was a D segment car, and know in the USA as the infiniti G20, the nissan bluebird also uses the hypercvt and also the nissan own and original parallel tino hybrid and several other nissan and subaru, build by transtechnology and subaru.

@Tim_Turbo@chanonissan I just forget to point out that there is more than one type of CVT 8 build by jatco some uses the steel belt as should in the pic above like the rogue, while some uses a thinker belt design look like a large rubber band , like the smaller car sentra.

That is a Subaru Impreza in the background. And you can also see a green Subaru Forester as well. The guy in the article might be talking about a Nissan, but he used a stock photo of a CVT which is a Subaru CVT. Based on the age of the Subaru models in the picture, that is also a first-gen Subaru CVT.

Wikepedia and "locker gnome" is are not really good automotive sources. Do you have access to Alldata? Looking at parts explosions and diagrams on the CVT for a 14 Rouge and a 14 Forester nothing is the same. Also, one takes 7 quarts of fluid, and one takes 12.9. If it was the same, just tuned different, why would that be different?

@Tim_Turbo @chanonissan I hope you see what I am telling you, you see that is a steel belt type in the pic, but there is also a other type that most journalist will have that looks like big rubber band.

As wiki told you it build to subaru specification, that why there is some difference in oil

you see it is very different form the first CVT jatco shows above for 2.0 liter to 2.5 liter, but the first post is what is use in the rogue, now add the all wheel drive, what would it look like? I bet the subaru CVT.

Again-they may share some common design technology, but the CVT in a Subaru is a completely different unit than that in the Nissan.

What got me started was the whole -they are the same transmission just tuned different-comment. To me that seems to mean that you think they put the Jatco 8 in both vehicles. Why would Subaru design/use a CVT that was meant for a FWD vehicle when all Subarus that use a CVT are designed to be AWD only?

@chanonissan @Tim_Turbo And I don't use Wiki for much of anything because anybody can go on there and type in whatever they want. One time the Subaru wiki said that Subaru discriminates against fat people because Subaru is Urabus backwards. And it was like that for over a month.

@Tim_Turbo@chanonissan This is my lost post on the subject And i am going to show you JAtco design the tranny , but it is build at FHI

The development was carried out jointly by JATCO, Fuji Heavy Industries and Fuji AT, producing a world-class CVT combining outstanding technology nurtured by JATCO and Fuji Heavy Industries over the years.

The CVT is being produced at Fuji Heavy Industries’ Gunma Oizumi Plant (Oizumi-cho, Ora-gun, Gunma Prefecture) while JATCO is in charge of marketing.

The CVT combines reduced friction, reduced lock-up start speed, wide gear ratio and hydraulic pressure optimization when starting. Furthermore, it is tuned to variable speed characteristics appropriate for the vehicle in which it is mounted and features the distinctive CVT smooth gear change feel without any shocks while also realizing improvements in acceleration characteristics and fuel efficiency.

This new addition has made it possible for the company to now offer a full line of CVTs over the entire spectrum from mini, small and midsize vehicles to large 3.5L-class vehicles.

We have already produced more than 55 million ATs and CVTs as one of the world’s leading manufacturers specializing in transmissions and continues to supply them to Nissan Motor Co.,Ltd. as well as other automakers both in Japan and abroad. It has been the industry frontrunner in the CVT field and was the first in the world to realize commercial production of belt CVTs for 2L-class front-engine front-wheel drive vehicles in 1997 and 3.5L-class high-torque front-engine front-wheel drive vehicles in 2002.

What is my understanding futher is that FUJI AT was didssolve and now all the tranny are made at FHI (that is subaru parent), but subaru and jatco joint develop the CVT, but build at individual plants.

the nissan version is an older version of CVt as it was release in 2009, the lineartronic in subaru is a newer version as it was release in 2012

@zdkibler Granted the Mazda 5 is probably the best looking of the bunch, but I didn't find anything in the segment more capable than the Forester XT. Does everything you want on the highway, and does very well on the back trails as well. I helped my friend buy a new CUV recently, and we tested the Escape, Tuscon, Kia Sportage, Mazda CX-5, Nissan Rogue, Rav 4, CRV, and Forester. The Mazda CX-5 was a fantastic CUV, both sporty and fuel efficient, but a bit slow even with the 184HP skyactive engine , and didn't feel as solid as some of the competition.

Though the Forester wasn't her first choice because of the exterior, everything about the driving experience, interior comfort, and price for package made the Forester an easy choice.

I never said it was a bad choice, just that it's uninteresting. There's nothing about it, or any Subaru that isn't a WRX or BRZ, for that matter, that stands out, other than its ruggedness. I fault absolutely no one for buying one; I just can't be bothered.